fll^3 




LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



111 Hill 
019 923 874 7 



w 



Tpi3 



COMESrONDENCE 



^ PATEJfT OFFICE MATTERS, 



WASHiXGTOisr, April 12, 1852. 

Sir : I respectfully beg leave to complain to you of a gross personal 
insult heaped upon me by Chief Examiner H. B. Eemvick, of the Patent 
OSce, during oiFice hours, and in the library of said office — the insult 
being unprovoked, and repeated in presence of the officials employed at 
the tin\e in the room, and of J. J. Johnston of Cincinnati, and my client. 
Mr. Renwick having entei'ed the library, I asked him permission to intro- 
duce my client to him, as my client was about to file a case which would 
be referred to him, and he laiuely and insolently repelled me, saying he 
" would have nothing to do or say with me on account of the dirty com- 
munication" I had published in the Farmer and Mechanic of Apal3, 1852, 
a copy of which was left at your department, and marked for your atten- 
tion. The " dirty" communication quotes a patent granted by Examiner 
Renwick to his brother the patent agent, E. S. Renw^c'c, in face of a 
rejected application filed by Wm, Wheeler, and acted on in 1S47-8 — 
Renwlck's patent being granted in 1850. 

I complain but of said Renwick's insolence, and I demand an investiga- 
tion and your protection. It is my due, and the right of an American 
citizen. 

Respectfully j^ours, 

TllOS. G. CLINTON. 

To the Secretary of the Interior. 



Departsient of the Interior, 

Washington^ June 1, 1852. 
Sir: I enclose herewith a copy of the reply of Henry B. Ren'"- 
examiner in the Patent Office, to the charges contained in your let* 
the 10th and 30th April. 

You are requested to furnish me at an early day with such rejo 
you deem it proper to make, and any evidence which you think " 
to support your charge. 

I am, sir, very respectfully vour obedient servant, 

ALEX. IL H. STUART, 
Mr. Thomas G. Clinton, present. 



"nil 



^ .7-1 

U. S. Patent Office, 

April 15, 1852. 
Sir: The letter of Mr. Thos. G. Clinton to the Hon. Secretary of the 
Interior, referred to me, was duly received, and I have the honor to sub- 
mit the following statements and observations in relation thei-eto: 

On entering the library, on the morning referred to, I was accosted in 
the most familiar manner by said Clinton, to Avhich no attention was paid. 
On Mr. Clinton's rising and introducing Mr. Johnston, I remarked sub- 
stantially as follows, viz: that it would give me pleasure to receive and 
converse with Mr. Johnston ; but that, after the dirty article published by 
him, (Clinton,) I requested that he would have as little communication with 
me as he possibly could. 

Several threats and some abuse from Mr. Clinton followed these remarks, 
to which the only reply made by me was, that I had no desire to bandy 
Avprds with him. 

On entering the library a second time, I took occasion again to state to 
Mr. Johnston that it would give me pleasure to converse with him on such 
business as he might have. 

This statement of occurrences can be substantiated in every respect, if 
necessary, by the assignment clerk, Mr. Turner, and in all essentials by 
the recording clerk, both of whom were present. 

These occurrences took place in a public room of the oiEce, and not in 
my own, and at a time when a well-known rule prevents resident patent 
attorneys (like Mr. Clinton) from even obtaining permission to hold per- 
sonal communication with examiners on official business. . 

The occurrence, therefore, was strictly unofficial. I desire to state, in 
relation thei'eto, that my request to Mr. Clinton that he would have as 
little to do with me as possible, was with reference to unofficial intercourse; 
the words " as possible" having been introduced for the reason that I knew 
that it would be obligatory upon me to answer his official letters or argu- 
ments, if referred to me ; and further, that my separation of Mr. Johnston 
from his introducer was made as distinct as possible. 

I further respectfully submit that my official position does not oblige me 
to hold private intercourse with any person, much less to submit to famil- 
iarity from one who has defamed me ; and I believe that the communica- 
tion in the " Farmer, Mechanic, and Cabinet," being anonymous, and 
tending by mean insinuation, and not by direct attack, to characterize me 
as partial, unjust, and false to my oath of office, was not unjustly charac- 
terized as dirty, and this without questioning the truth of the inferences 
and statements therein. 

By inquiry on these latter points it will appear in chief, and leaving out 

T3oints of minor importance — first, that the bolt of Wheeler, although 

■imarily rejected, was subsequently patented ; second, that the extracts 

^ Renwick's patent are garbled ; third, that the two patented articles 

lot even a' similarity, except in the fact that both are metallic ; and 

*:hat at the time of granting the latter patent, the former (Wheeler's) 

efully considered, having been called to their attention, both by 

V colleagues and myself, and found to have no bearing at all upon 

k1 chair. 

, therefore, that the truth would have not been exceeded had 

'on been characterized as maliciously false and libellous. 

-^n, permit me to state that I leave the complaint in your 



/ 



8 

hands and that of the Hon. Secretary, with the fullest confidence in the 
justice of the conclusion that you may arrive at respecting the sjiine, and 
court (should you deem it necessary) the fullest investigation into this or 
any transaction connected Avith my official duties. 
All of which is respectfully submitted. 

HENRY B. RENWICK, Examiner. 
Hon. Thos. Ewbank, 

Commissioner of Patents. 



Washington, June 12, 18-52. 
To the Secretaey of the Interior : 

Sir : In accordance with my pi'omise, I proceed to furnish you with 
my rejoinder to Mr. H. B. Renwick's letter ; the latter part of which I 
will take up first, and then touch its opening paragraphs : 

The article characterized by him as "dirty," " maliciously false and 
libellous," and "garbled," is as follows: 

For the Farmer and Mechanic. 

The condition of the Patent Office is truly lamentable, and the influence it 
exerts over the industrial arts and sciences worse than baneful. $200,000 
Avould not put the drawings and the library in the condition they ought to 
be, and yet more than that has been drawn from the pockets of the poor 
inventors, for the accommodation of a parcel of worthless models, not even 
fit for fife wood — and this collection of models, too, a nuisance, taking its 
existence from an unwarrantable construction put upon the law, whereby 
a rule of the office requires a model to complete an application, when the 
law alone authorizes the Commissioner to demand a model after he has 
decided to grant a patent; the law being made only so that an inventor 
shall not take away his model if he may have chosen to deposit one any 
how. The fear in 1837 was, that all the models being burnt, there would 
not be traps enough about the Bureau to make it an object for the attention 
of visitors or others. So they authorized the Commissioner to grab all 
the models he could, but did not authorize him to demand one before the 
application should be considered complete. More than this need for $200,000, 
the Patent Office is actually bankrupt. It could not pay its debts this 
day by somewhere between $40,000 and $60,000. (See financial table of 
Commissioner's Report for 1850, and Dv. Page's Report as Examiner, with 
regard to the number of applications liable to be withdrawn.) See how' 
the expenses, too, have increased. In 1847 the receipts were $63,111 19, 
and the expenditures were $41,878 35. In 1850 the receipts were 
$86,927 05^and the expenditures were $80,100 95. This is the result of 
giving 8, or as at present (1852) 12 men the powers of judge, jury, and 
counsel over the rights of property derived from inventions in the industrial 
arts and sciences in the United States and elsewhere What a monstrous 
feature to be engrafted on a republican law ! Of the value and correctness 
(to leave integrity and what else appertains to frail humanity out of the 
question) of the action of this examining corps, the following documents 
give some idea: 

William Wheeler (noAv) of West Poultney, Vt., applied for letters patent 
for an invention identical in principle with that which was afterwards 



\ 



granted to Edw. S. Renwick, of Wasliington City. Mr. Wheeler applied 
for a patent for chairs or seats for door bolts, and was rejected in 1847-8. 
Mr. Renwick applied for a chair for rails for railroads, and obtained a 
patent for the same in 1850. 

We give below, for substance, the specifications of the two patents: 

Copy of Wheeler s Specifications, rejected in 1847-8. 

" To ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN : Be it known that I, Wm. Wheeler, 
have invented a new and and useful improvement in the manner of con- 
structing bolts for doors, said bolts being so made as to constitute a new 
manufacture, and I do hereby declare the following a full and exact descrip- 
tion thereof. 

"Bolts for doors have been made with flat plates of wrought iron, having 
staples or loops riveted in them to receive and guide the sliding bar or 
bolt proper ; tlie plate and its loop or staples, together with a stop piece, 
usually consisting of five pieces. In my improved manner of manufactur- 
ing bolts, one single piece of sheet metal is substituted for the whole number 
of pieces heretofore required in the manufacturing of bolts of wrought 
metal, irrespective of the sliding bolt itself. 

"I do not make any claim Avhatever to the machinery by means of which 
my bolts are manufactured, as this is a mere modification of such as is well 
known to machinists. 

" I take sheet iron, or other malleable plates of metal, and cut it into 
pieces of suitable length and width ; for an eight-inch bolt these will be 
eight inches long and about four inches wide. By means of a suitable 
press, I then perforate these plates in the manner represented in my draw- 
ings. The plate is then bent by means of a press and suitable dies into 
one form, and subsequently into another as represented. In perfoiming 
this last operation, an iron bolt a trifle larger than that which is to con- 
stitute the sliding bolts is inserted along the part which is to receive said 
bolt, and the plate is then finished. 

" Having thus described the nature of my new manufacture of bolts for 
doors, what I claim therein as new, and desire to secure by letters patent, 
is, making this whole of the instrument, with the exception of the sliding 
bolt itself, one piece of malleable metal, by bending the same and by 
making a perforation therein to receive and allow of the play of the shank 
of the knob as herein set forth." 

Copy of Ilenivielcs Specfications." 

" To ALL -WTIOM IT MAY CONCERN : Be it known that I, EdAvard S. RenAvick, 
have invented a ncAv and useful improvement in wrought-iron railroad chairs^ 
of which the following is a description : My invention consists of a railroad 
chair formed from a plate of wrought-iron by simply punching tongues 
from that portion of the plate on which the rail is usually supported, into 
the proper shape to constitute the lips of the chair. Or, to contrast my 
chair with those heretofore in use, it may be stated that in them the edges 
of the tongues which form the lips are first cut free, and the tongues are 
then bent from without inwards towards the middle of the plate : while in 
my chair the tongues are punched from within outwards towards the edges 
of the plate. In all these cases it will be perceived that the chair can be 
formed by one motion of a direct acting die or punch, and without the use 
of mandrels or bending levers. So also that part of the lip which adjoins 



the plain part of the chair may be an easy curve, thus avoiding danger of 
breaking or straining the iron of which the lip is formed. 

"What I claim as my invention, and desire to secure by Letters Patent, 
is, a wrouglit-iron railroad chair, with lips formed of that portion of the 
plate on which the rail is usually supported." 

A dozen or more, nay hundreds of actions equally as correct could be 
drawn from the pigeon holes of the Patent Office. For instance, see the 
invention covered by Ellicott's patent, No. 7454, for a churn dasher, Avhich 
Dr. Gale was rejecting as to one applicant out and out in one room, while 
Dr. Page was gi-anting interferences between two or more other applicants 
in another room. (See Page's report for 1849.) The writer of this had 
actually withdrawn his client's case in despair (for to what competent tri- 
bunal could he appeal?) and received the ^20, when by accident he heard 
what was going on in Page's room, under the circumstances obtained leave 
to withdraw his withdrawal and join in the intei'ference. It would fill folios 
to go on with this enumeration. And the contradiction manifest in the con- 
struction of the law and its bearing on what is and what is not patentable, 
would fill folios more. Let us abolish the Examining Corps. The same 
men can act as agents and be just as reliable in their opinions as they now 
are as official:?. Let us have a dozen or more custodians of models, and 
the office will be all that good law can make it. The law now attempts 
to much perfection, and only brings forth a nuisance. It is better to burn 
up 9-lOths of the worthless models than to spend a dollar on their preser- 
vation. They are a stumbling-block in the way of invention. A record 
should alone be retained of practical inventions. This can well be accom- 
plished by refusing to receive any model (or like oiTering) unless stamped 
with the public approbation as of long-tried utility. The whole of the 
portfolios of rejected applications should be destroyed. The caveat files 
and contents should be made but a heap of ashes. How cheap then the 
attainment of a patent would be to an inventor, viz : a fee (say $5) and the 
record expenses. What he now throws away on the office would more than 
pay his attorney twice over in the generality of cases. The fees should also 
go into the general treasury. It is a fallacy and worse than fallacy, the 
idea that the Patent Office and the Post Office should be self-sustaining in- 
stitutions. Either is worth a million of Navy, War, and Foreign Depart- 
ments. Why are not they self-sustaining ? 

When a trial at law is needed concerning an invention, or the infringe- 
ment thereof, let the parties choose their representatives, and let these 
representatives appoint a judge, whose jurisdiction over the case shall be 
equal to that of any circuit court, and let the unsuccessful party have a 
right to appeal to a bench composed of the representatives and judge, the 
decision of this bench being final. I am opposed to all courts of law as now 
constituted. Arbitration or a temporary court, paid by Government, with a 
resident clerk in each circuit, to whom temporai-y clerks shall report, for 
condensation and publication of the decisions, is what meets my views in 
all cases, civil or criminal. 



Upon perusal of this communication, the only names of examiners em- 
ployed in the Patent Office at that date (April 3d, 1852, Dr. Page having 
since resigned) to be found therein, are those of Dr. Page and Dr. Gale. 

The article is one evidently written with a view to attain an object 



publicly known to be pressed by me, viz : amendments in the patent laws. 
The foilowing letters tend to evidence this statement : 

Cincinnati, October 28, 1851. 

Gentlemen: As the time is approaching for the meeting of the next 
Congress, I beg leave to execute a lequest Avhich I have withheld till date. 
It is, that TOu will ky before your multitudes of readers the suggestion I 
have made as a proposed amendment to the patent laws of the United 
States, viz: "That the Commissioner of Patents shall cause such authori- 
ties to be cited to applicants for letters patent as in his judgment invalidate 
their claims to letters patent : Provided^ however^ That letters patent, with 
the authorities cited, and appended in some suitable form thereto, shall 
issue to the applicant, should he persist in his demand." 

My own impression is, that it would strip the Patent Office of the uncon- 
stitutional power it now exercises, viz: those of judge, jury, and counsel 
by the same individuals ; and yet preserve all the benefits of the present 
official examinations. ' The inventor would have his patent, if he persisted 
in his claim; the public would be forewarned, and the patent fund would 
be greatly relieved from the drain now made on it by withdrawals to say 
nothing of the reduced expenses which would be experienced in the items 
"correspondence" and "incidentals." 

THOS. G. CLINTON. 

To Messrs. Munn & Cc. 



Cincinnati, June 18, 1851. 

Dear Sir: Allow me the use of your columns for the purpose of urging 
upon inventors the necessity of petitioning the next Congress, at the 
earliest possible period, to amend the patent laws to the effect, " that the 
Commissioner of Patents shall cause such authorities to be cited as in his 
judgment invalidate their claim to letters patent: Provided^ however^ That 
letters patent, with the authorities cited, and appended in some suitable 
form thereto, shaU issue to the applicant, should he persist in his de- 
mand." 

Many years' experience, and much thought on the subject, have led me 
to the above proposition. I have for many months privately urged it, and 
I now, with your consent, publicly propose it. 
Yours, truly, 



THOS. G. CLINTON. 



To the Editor of the Commercial. 



Cincinnati, July 1, 1851. 
Sir: I am told that you are not committed to any proposed amend- 
ments of the present patent laws. For obvious reasons, therefore, I 
forward you a proposition on that subject. As you see by the enclosed 
slip from the Cincinnati Commercial, I have caused it to be published 
therein. I submit it to your consideration for publication in your columns, 
and for comment. My own impressions are, that it would preserve all the 
benefits of the present course of official examination, yet strip the Patent 
Office of the unconstitutional powers it now exercises, viz : those of judge, 
jury, and counsel, by the same individuals. The public would be fore- 



warned, the applicant would have his pMent, if he persisted in his claim 
thevero, and tlie patent fund would be relieved from the dvain now made 
on it by Avithdrawals, to say nothing of cost of correspondence and other 
incidental expenses. 

Yours, respectfully, 

THOS. G. CLINTON. 
To the Editor of the Farmer and Mechanic, 

122 Nassau street, New Torh. 



Cincinnati, December 15, 1851. 
Sir: I perceive you are at the head of the committee which is actually 
the most "important to the country. Referring you to my enclosed circular 
as to who I am, and why I pretend to suggest an amendment to the patent 
laws of the United States, peimit me to propose the same for your con- 
sideration. (See letters above.) 

The effect of this clause Avould be to strip the Patent Office of its 
unconstitutional powers, viz : judge, jury, and counsel. It would render 
unnecessary the appeal to the chief justice of the District of Columbia, 
(at best an incompef-ent tribunal,) and save his salary for the patent fund. 
It would preserve all the benefits of the present system of examinations. 
It would leave the applicant fiee to choose his own course, instead of 
- having it dictated to him by an incompetent authority. It would save the 
Patent Office a vast amount of correspondence. It would save the patent 
fund a vast amount of money now Avithdrawn ; and I give it as my opinion, 
after having personally transacted patent business in almost every civilized 
country, that it would make the most perfect patent system ever tried. 
Yours, respectfully, 

THOS. G. CLINTON. 
To the Hon. David R. Cartter, 

Qhairman oj\ Committee on Patents 

As the dollars and cents rule all human action in this 19th century, the 
financial condition of the office is proved to be one of bankruptcy. This 
is gun No. 1 fired off iii the communication alluded to. 

* 2d. Unsound action by various examiners on questions of patentability 
are enumerated. 

8d. The abolition of the examining corps is urged. 
4tli. The self-sustaining feature in the patent fund and post-office 
finances is objected to; 

And various other suggestions and reflections germain to the subject 
are scattered all through the printed article. 
*, It is true the mistake is made that Mr. Wheeler's application for 
« letters patent for a noAV manufacture in door bolts still continues in the 
shape of a rejected application. But that error I corrected in a commu- 
nication to the same paper, as foWows: 

For the Fanner and Mechanic. 

G^ftiEMEN : In a communination touching the Patent Office, which I 
sent you on the 3d of April, I was in error in stating that Wheeler's ap- 
plication was still rejected. I was led into the mistake from my recollec- 
tions of the case and the inquiries I made, aU tending to the conclusion 



8 

that the case still remained rejectqd. Mr, Watson, of the firm of Watson 
& Renwick, addressed me personally on the subject this morning, and I 
told him candidly the search I had made. Mr. Fitzgerald, in 1847, rejected 
Wheeler's application on Jidy 21st, and afterwards verbally refused to 
pass the claim. It appears that Mr. BnVke took up the case and passed it 
in Octooer 23, 1847, without notice, at least, to me who was then an As- 
sistant Examiner, and in ordinary routine of business, always examined 
cases as passed, with reference to the caveats on similar subjects. There- 
fore it appears that llenwick's patent for a railroad chair was granted in 
face of Wheeler's patent instead of Wheeler's rejected application, the inven- 
tions in my opinion being indentical. I cite the case as one looming out 
against the infallibility of the official examinations made by the Patent Office. 
I wrote Mr. W^heeler prior to sending you the communication, but I never 
received any reply. Please make the ;ibovc correction in your columns, 
and oblige, Yours, &c., 

TIIOS. G. CLINTON. 
Wasiiingtox, 3Iay, 1, 1852. 

This error, however, makes no difference. The patent is as good a 
reference for the rejection of E. S. llenwick's application for letters patent 
for a ncAV manufacture in wrought-iron railroad chains as would be the 
rejected application in this or any other case. Trusting too much to my 
memory, this erroneous impression with regard to Wheeler's application 
caused me not to tliink of it for one moment as having been since patented. 
I had written from Cincinnati, where my office was a few months back, to 
Mr. 0. II. West, a patent agent of this city; and also to Mr. Hall and 
Mr. Webb, in a letter addressed to either or both of them, as Dr. T. P. 
Jones's executors, with regard to Wheeler's case. In Cincinnati I recol- 
lected the case, but not the name, and advised my client there that it 
stood in the way of Eenwick's patent; and the name I found out by great 
search after arriving in Wnshington, and under instr actions to inquire 
into the validity of E. S. llenwick's patent.^ At Mr. Webb's office I 
looked through all the specification books of Dr. Jones which Mr. Webb 
had. I found out then that Mr. West had -^some of these books, and 
found there the specification I was hunting up. It Avas after seeing the 
specification that I found the name to be Wheeler, my previous impression 
having been that the name was Wilson. I also had previously written to 
E. S. Brundage, of Troy, N. Y., he and Mr. W^est having both lived with 
Dr. Jones. I had also consulted with Mr. J. J. Greenough to know if he 
had such a case among the papers of Dr. Jones, which he might possess, 
but all to no purpose, until I found the book at Mr. West's. 

It may be asked why I did not get information from the Patent Offi.pe. 
I did endeavor to do so ; but as I was enquiring about a rejected applica- 
tion, and was not Wheeler's agent, Mr. Mclntyre very properly refused 
to tell me anything about it. I then found great difficulty in obtaining 
Mr. Wheeler's address, but at last succeeded, and wrote to Mr. Wheeler, at 
West Poultney, Rutland county, Vermont. I received no answer from 
Mr. Wheeler. I did not keep a copy of my letter to Mr. Wheeler, and 
this I regret, as it was one advisatory of the course he ought to pursue, 
and would at once make manifest my object, although I must say I have 
somewhat forgotten its tenor. 

I think it was Senator Norris who first called mj attention to the fact 



9 

that "^Mieeler had his patent, a certified copy of which he showed me as 
forming part of the appendages to Watson & Renwick's petition counter 
to mine, and sent soon after mine to the Congress of the United States. 
Up to that moment I was fully under the impression that Wheeler's appli- 
cation was still rejected. I told Mr. Norris that I must then be in error 
so far, but that it did not alter the validity of the reference. Mr. Norris 
merely remarked that Mr. Wheeler had his remedy, and of course Con- 
gress ought to leave the matter to the courts, or words to that eifect. Up 
to the time of this interview I was fully impressed, as I have before and 
above stated, that Wheeler had no patent: all my error arising from the 
convictions of my memory and the diificylties I have narrated. 

The letter of Mr. Webb, my letter to Mr. West, Mr. West's reply, my 
letter to^i\^*wbank, my letter to Senator King, and a copy of my peti- 
tion, ain^s folrows : 

Washington City, June 7, 1852. 

Dear Sir : Your favor of the 4th instant w^as duly received by me. 
You request me to state " whether you did not call on me, and request 
permission to overhaul Dr. Jones's specification books, for a door bolt, 
which you considered a legitimate reference in the case of a patent granted 
subsequently to the rejection of the bolt by the Patent Ofiice." I do dis- 
tinctly remember your calling upon me, and requesting permission to over- 
haul the specification books of Dr. Thomas P. Jones, deceased, now in my 
possession as the attorney of the executrix of Dr. Jones. I recollect dis- 
tinctly your making the search, and my assisting you in it. Here, hovf- 
ever, my recollection of the matter ceases to be distinct, and I am afraid, 
after due deliberation and consideration, that I have a very confused rec- 
ollection of the object of your search. I think it had reference to a bolt 
of some kind and a railroad car or chair. My ignorance upon m.echanical 
subjects, and the fact that my attention was at the time absorbed with 
other matters, must account for my great uncertainty on this point. 

You ask me if I did not receive a letter from you on this subject, &c., 
some time prior to your visit. I do remember receiving a letter from you, 
written upon a printed circular ; but do not remember its contents, nor 
whether it was upon the subject you mention or not. I remember it was 
addressed to Mr. Plall or myself, both of our names being mentioned in 
the address as attorneys of Dr. Jones's executrix. This is all 1 know 
about the matter. 

Truly yours, 

W. B. WEBB. 



Washington, June 6, 1852. 

Dear Sir : Will you please state whether I did or did not call on you, 
when I was in search of Dr. Jones's duplicate copies of the applications 
for patents he used to make, and ask you if you had the book containing 
that of Wm. Wheeler, and if I did not search for, find, and copy it in your 
oflSce. 

Moreover, did I not address you a letter from Cincinnati asking infor- 
mation touching such an application ? and further, did I not get the address 



1^ 

of E. S. Brundage, in Troy, from you, for the purpose of asking him about 
it — you and he having both been with Dr. Jones in former years ? 

Yours truly, 

■^ THOS. G. CLINTON. 
Mr. West. 



Washington, Jiinc 6, 1852. 

Dear Sir : I remember your calling to see me some time ago, and 

requesting me to allow you to examine the copies of specifications for 

patents of the late Di-. T. P. Jones, which are in my possession ; and after 

examining them, you copied one specification, and you e^^lained to me 



the nature and object of the invention specified in it ; but iT:orgak now the 
precise natuie of it. '^ ^ 

Your obedient servant, 

GEO. R. WEST. 
Mr. Clinton. 

P. S. You also wn-ote to me from Cincinnati regarding these specifica- 
tions, and I referred you to Edwin S. Biundage, of Troy, N. Y'^. 



Washington, April 12, 1852. 

Sir : I respectfully inform you that in consecjuence of the gross per- 
sonal insult hea])ed upon me in the library of the Patent Ofiice this morning 
by Examiner Kenwick, in reply to a civil lequest that he would allow me 
to introduce my client, J. J. Johnson, of Cincinnati, (then present,) to him, 
I intend to take such measures as will open to me speedy justice and fair 
treatment in the Patent Olfice, and as will lay before the public the insuf- 
ferable condition in which the people find themselves when obliged to 
transact business with some of their servants. In this matter I desire to 
say that I neither reflect nor desire to allude to the Commissioner of Pat- 
ents, either officially or personally, but simply to make an eflbrt to cause 
such an example to be made of Mr. llenwick as will bring others similarly 
disposed to their senses. 

Very respectfully, 

TiiOS. G. CLINTON. 

To the Commissioner of Patents. 



Washington, April 14, 1852. 
Sir : Several days ago I addressed a petition to Congress, and sent it 
to your care as the presiding officer of the Senate, before which body I 
wished to lay it, inasmuch as I was known personally to the Hon. Chair- 
man of the Senate Committee on Patents ; and I furthermore took this 
course rather than apply to some Senator to present it, because I wanted 
it to go upon its merits alone. I have not observed in the papers that it 
has been presented, and I have deemed it respectful to you and just to 
myself to indite this letter, in order to inquire if the petition is not pre- 
sentable under any circumstances. 



11 

My object is to abolish a system which does great injury to the interests 
involved in inventions applied to the industrial arts and sciences. 

Gen. Millson of Virginia, of the House of Representatives, is intimately 
acquainted Avith me for many years back ; but I am Avell knoAvn to others, 
Senators and Members. 

Yours respectfuliy, 

^ THOS. G. CLINTON. 
To the President of the Senate of the United States. 



To the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United States: 
The petition of Thos.G. Clinton,' 

Respectfully represents : that reference being had to a communication 
touching the Patent Office, in the ''Farmer and Mechanic," a New York 
newspaper, dated April 3, 1852, your honorable bodies require of the 
Patent Office the reasons which influenced Chief Examiner H. B. Renwick 
to grant to his brother, E. S. Renwick, a patent agent, a patent for a 
wrought-iron railroad chair in 1850, in face of the rejection of VVm. 
Wheeler's application for letters patent for an identical invention in 
1747-8. 

Your petitioner respectfully encloses a copy of said Wheeler's specifica- 
tion, and a certified copy of the specification of E. S. Renwick, and urgently 
prays that a searching investigation be had into this and such similar cases 
as may be made known if desired. 

Very respectfully, your petitioner, 

THOS. G. CLINTON. 

P. S. A copy of "Farmer and Mechanic" also enclosed. 

All these letters, and the fact that I had spoken to Examiner Renwick 
about the matter soon after I reached Washington, at which time he seemed 
to know nothing about Wheeler's bolt, or rather such a bolt — for I did not 
know the name of the applicant — and the fact that I had spoken to Ex- 
aminer Fitzgerald more than once, and he recollected nothing about this 
bolt, until I called it to his memory by a relation of incidents connected 
with it, as I was his assistant at the time he rejected it, — all go to show 
that there is no malicious falsehood attempted. Up to and, after the very 
hour of the insult perpetrated upon me I was under the impression that 
Examiner Renwick had granted E. S. Renwick's patent, in complete igno- 
rance of Wheeler's case. I looked upon it only as a rod to hold over his 
head, and as a corrective of the belief in the infallibility of the examining 
corps. I had often so expressed myself to various patent agents and 
others. I thought it possible that Dr. Jones had taken the papers and 
drawings from the office, and therefore left no finger-post to guide the 
Examiner to the knowledge of such a bolt. But when Mr. Renwick so 
grossly insulted me, and exhibited such soreness, it appeared to me there 
must be some ground for the rumors of influential undercurrents and under- 
ground railroads for obtaining patents, and I spoke out. But of this 
speaking out I will treat further along. 



12 

Now, it has been seen that the communication does not name H. B. 
Renwick from beginning to end, but names other examiners v/hom I haye 
yet to learn consider themselves defamed ; that the error in the communi- 
cation was corrected as soon as it came to my hnoAvledge ; that it makes 
no difference so far as legitimacy in reference is concerned ; and I now 
introduce a letter from the editor of the paper in Avhich the article was 
published, showing that I furnished them the entire specifications of 
Wheeler's and of Renwick's cases : 

New York, Juyie 9, 1852. 
Dear Sir : Yours of June 4th is duly received. In answer, Ave would 
say that you did send us complete copies of the specifications of Wheeler 
and Renwick, and wo gave their substance and the substance of your com- 
munications, Avithout any knoAvledge of yours, as we deemed most suitable 
for our columns. 

We send you two papers of May 15th as you desire. 
Very truly yours, &c., 

0. B. BIDWELL & CO. 
Thos. G. Clinton, Esq., 

Washington, D. C. 

I have therefore committed myself to no malicious falsehood, to no 
garbling, and to no libel, so far at least as IT. B. Renwick is individually 
concerned. Mr. Renwick, so far from being singled out as the black sheep 
of the Patent Office, is not even named. And as he is scarcely known 
beyond the precincts of his ofiicial desk, I Avill venture to assert that 
scarcely a reader of the " Farmer, Mechanic, and Cabinet" is aware of his 
existence. The communication strikes a blow at the finances and organi- 
zation of the Patent Oflice. Renwick's patent was mentioned, because my 
attention was called more particularly to it, as will readily be perceived 
from the previous tenor of this paper. I might have selected A. Heyer 
Brown's patent for hose coupling, Corliss's for steam-engine regulator, 
Still's for moulding, as samples going to show that patents are readily 
granted in some cases, when in other cases applications of gieat merit arc 
rejected and the claims frittered away in a manner and style of argument 
that would disgrace an apprentice of twelve months' experience. As to 
the anonymous character of the communication, my name Avent Avitli it, 
and everybody conversant Avith such matters knew that communication 
came from no pen but mine, I having published and Avrittcn many letters 
urging amendments to the patent laAA^s, and giving the reasons therefor. 
Moreover, Mr. ReuAvick of all others should not object to an anonymous 
letter, for his own appointment as examiner Avas foreshadoAved in an anony- 
mous letter written by Edmund Burke, late Commissioner of Patents, and 
published in the " Scientific American" newspaper of Ncav York, dated 
May 27, 1848, the said letter being signed "Fiat Justitia," and being 
as follows : 

For the Scientific American. 

The Patent Office. 

Mr. Editor : I observed, in reply to a communication in your valuable 
paper, signed " Inventor," you state that the examiners in the Patent 



IB 

Office have, during the past two months, devoted twelve hours each day 
to the business of their desks. Designing to injure no one, but merely to 
subserve the cause of truth, I feel bound to correct the error into which 
you have fallen. 

It is not true that the examiners, during the last two months, have 
labored twelve hours each day. I suspect your error originated from the 
fact that the Commissioner tried the experiment of prolonged hours of labor, 
but failed even in getting so much work done as was done in the usual 
hours. 

I understand the facts to be these : Mr. Burke observing a great increase 
of new applications, and a less number of examinations, during the months 
of December, January, and February, determined to try the experiment of 
increasing the hours of labor in his office. All the clerks, therefore, were 
required, during the month of March, to be at the office at 9 o'clock in the 
morning, labor until 3 o'clock p. m., then take a recess until 6 o'clock, when 
they were to return and remain until 9 o'clock in the evening. He was 
present with them, to show that he was ready and willing to share all their 
labors and privations. He continued this arrangement during the entire 
month of Zvlarch, and found at the end, that, with all the increased hours 
of labor, no more, if so much, work was done as under the old arrangement. 
And he was even importuned by honorable Senators (whether or not on 
the complaints of examiners and clerks is not known) to discontinue the 
practice. Finding that no more business was accomplished, he did discon- 
tinue it. 

These, I understand, are the facts, and their weight should rest where 
it ought to rest. The unwillingness of the examiners and clerks to second 
the praiseworthy efforts of the Commissioner to advance the business of the 
Patent Office will not, I am confident, be forgotten by Mr. Burke. And 
when the bill increasing the force and the salaries of the examiners shall 
pass, and the office shall be fully organized under it, Mr. Burke is not the 
man who will forget to reward appropriately those who have so nobl^ 
seconded his efforts to do the public business. 

The hours of labor in the public offices in Washington are regulated by 
law. From October 1st to April 1st, the clerks are required to labor not 
less than six hours a day. From April 1st to October 1st, they are required 
to labor not less than seven. Of course the heads of the public offices may 
require more labor of their clerks if the public interests require it. And 
the examiners and clerks in the Patent Office have never labored more than 
the hours absolutely required by law, except during the month of March, 
as above mentioned. You and your readers can therefore judge whether 
they are entitled to the praise of doing so much extra labor as you give 
them credit for doing, and whether they are the proper persons to receive 
the greatly increased salaries provided for in the new bill. 

As I want no imposition upon the public in this matter, I have made the 
above exposition of facts, which, I am confident, will be found to be sub- 
stantially correct. 

FIAT JUSTITIA. 

This letter will be found in House report. No. 839, 1st session 30th 
Congress, although the history touching much of its contents has yet to 
be published. 

As this communication, then, is free from the dirt of H. B. Renwick's 



1^ 

name', or any allusion individnally to Wm, the question arise^, Avliy is Mr. 
H. B. Renwick, one out of six examiners, so sore about it? 

i will tell the story, if it so please you; and as my position with regard 
to the office is the ground-work of the picture, I will give a sample of its 
correspondence with me a short time previously. 

Gmcmi^ ATI, September 1^,1851. 
Sir: Permit me to urge upon you, in behalf of western inventors, that 
you authorize the surveyor of this port to transmit models by railroad to 
Pittsburgh. By railroad they could be sent every day; by the Ohio river 
they are often detained for weeks. You know that Randolph gave a 
description of the Ohio. ■ I can aver that he uttered a great deal of truth. 
The river is now so loAt that weeks must elapse before it is navigable for 
regular steam-packets, so called. 

Yours, respectfully, 

TIIOS. G. CLINTON. 
To the Commissioner of Patents. 



,M •:, Patent Office, September 20, 1851. 

Sir: The subject of your letter of the 16th instant, in regard to the 
transmission of models to this office,- has been duly considered, and you are 
informed, in reply, that it is not deemed advisable to issue any additional 
instructions to the surveyor of the port of Cincinnati. 

Applicants and patent agents can transmit their models by whatevei' 
■conveyance they may think proper; but the office can pay the expense of 
the cheapest ti-ansportation only. 

I am, respectfully, 

THOS. EWBANK, Commissioner. 
Thomas G-. Clinton, Esq., 

Cincinnati Ohio. 



Cincinnati, September 25, 1851. 

Sir: Y^'our letter of 20th instant, with regard to transportation of 
models, gave' rise to the question whether the surveyor is not bound to 
forward the models by the cheapest route open to him at the time of 
receiving the models. By railroad to Pittsburgh is now the cheapest 
route — nay, the only route. I hold that the office has no right to delay 
models here because they cannot be sent by the river. I shall demand of 
the surveyor of this poi-t to forward the models forthwith by the cheapest 
route open to him ; and if the demand is not complied Avith, I shall, in the 
name of western inventors, lay the case, with all due deference to the 
Patent Office, before the President of the United States. 

When it is considered that the Commissioner has no legal right to 
demand a model until he has decided to grant a patent, and under no 
ch'cumstances has a right to delay, for even an hour, let alone days and 
weeks, the transmission of models to the Patent Office, it is thought by 
western inventors that great disparity is meted out to them in comparison 
with eastern inventors, whose models are daily sent by railroad from Maine, 



15 

re, to Washington. Under instructions to remonstrate with the office 
p-ainst its action, I tender, personally, my respectful salutati(;ns, 



THOS. G. CLINTON. 



To the Commissioner of Patents. 



U. S. Patent Office, 

September 30, 1851. 
Sir: By reference to my letter of the 20th instant, you will observe 
that it is there stated that the office can pay the expense of the cheapest 
transportation only. If from Cincinnati to Washington by railroad be the 
cheapest route, the surve^^or at Cincinnati is authorized to transmit models 
by that conveyance ; if it be not, the office will decline issuing any further 
directions to that officer. You are aware that no law imposes upon this 
bui'cau the burden of paying the freight upon models; but having con- 
sented to do so, it has and will, with the approval of higher authority, 
prescribe its own conditions. 

Your threat of appeal to the President of the United States is disre- 
garded, [contemned,] as the office feels perfectly clear in the justice of its 
course. Your claim to be recognized as the exponent of that respectable 
and intelligent class, the western inventors, is denied. They are competent 
to speak for themselves. 

I am, respectfully, 

THOS. E\\BANK, Commissioner. 
Thomas G. Clinton, Esq., 

Cincinnaii, Ohio. 



Cincinnati, October 6, 1851. 

Ever since Mr. Ewbank has been connected with the Patent Office the 
undersigned has been made the object of his official and personal contempt. 
Having no personal acquaintance Avith you ; having neither opposed your 
elevation to the chair of (,"ommissioner, nor since your appointment treated 
you, as an official or an individual, in any other than a respectful manner, 
although I have had good cause to take umbrage, — I am at a loss to con- 
ceive why it is that I am so individually obnoxious to Mr. Ewbank. From 
the date of the infamous and universally condemned conclusion to Avhich 
the patent committee of the House of Kepresentatives came with regard 
to my difficulty with Edmund Burke, late Commissioner of Patents, I ha.ve 
deemed it advisable to pass by many an insult, because I knew it would 
be difficult to persuade my fellow-men that I was not quarrelsome. You 
seem to have adopted Mr. Burke's views, and to feel to be called upon to 
take up the cudgels for him. I think your letter of the 30th September, 
written as Commissioner of Patents, justified this private letter to you, and 
gives me a proper occasion to say that I am a gentleman, who is biding 
his time and the will of Providence Avith regard to the station he is entitled 
to hold among his fellow-men. 

Having an intimate knowledge of the personnelle of officials in Wash- 
ington, I can readily appreciate how easy it is to mislead you. When 
least credited for it, I liave been doing the office good service. The time 
may perhaps come when my course will be understood and appreciated. 



16 

Had Mr. Ewbank long since tendered me the place of an examiner, I feel 

assured that he would have gratified at least nine-tenths of the inventors 
of the United States; and if Mr. Ewbank knew all that passed between 
Edmund Burke and myself, or vfhat vows of support were made to me, 
previous to the actual delivery of my charges against E. B., by most of 
the persons now in the Patent Office, who were then also there, he would, 
I am sure, do me justice, so far as individual good-will and treatment could 
go. I have said thus much, because I feel that, if better advised, Mr. 
Ewbank would more readily see the scope and meaning of any letter 
addressed by me to him as Commissioner of Patents. 

In my late letter to the Commissioner, Mr. EAvbank will find that I made 
no threat with regard to him. I said, in the name of at least six clients, 
whose cases will feel the delay occasioned by the low water in the river, 
and with a knowledge of the vicAvs of at least a thousand persons interested 
in patents, that if the surveyor of the port would not send the models, I 
would lay the case before the President of the United States. The law 
(see sec. 10, of 1837) authorizes the Commissioner to appoint agents for 
the transmission of models, &:c., and (contrary to the letter of the Com- 
missioner to me, dated September 30, 1851) orders the same to be paid 
for out of the patent fund. After the agent is appointed, he (the agent) 
is responsible for the transportation, and the President of the United 
States is his direct superior officer, because, if the Commissioner of Patents 
is so recognised, there could be no appeal from his decision, inasmuch as 
the very able chief justice (Cranch) of the District of Columbia has 
decided that he has jurisdiction alone over a refusal to grant letters patent 
for any alleged claim to any portion of an alleged invention. In writing 
to the office for patents, I of course took the strongest ground I could for 
making m.y point, and I cannot but feel that the Commissioner went out of 
his way to treat me, as an individual, with personal contempt. If desired, 
I can readily have a public expression of opinion given upon the subject 
of my recent letters to the Commissioner. 

Yet I wish to say that the very polite and gentlemanly surveyor of this 
port has my best wishes for his official and personal prosperity. I have 
ever met at his hands the most prompt attention, the most entire politeness 
at hie hands as an individual, and an affability truly gratifying. He is 
ready, and ever has been ready, to do anything he thought he could 
legally do. I make no complaints against him, and I conceive he would 
take no personal umbrage if I did appeal to the President of the United 
States to overrule any decision he might make. All he has ever wanted 
was the concurrence of the Commissioner of Patents with regard to his 
action in the matter of models. To my knowledge, his clerk has been to 
the river over and over again ; and his clerk (Mr. Bond being absent) was 
fully aware that I intended to appeal to the President, in case the models 
were delayed for a rise in the river — an event that may not take place for 
two or even three months to come. 

I will further say that I am about to remove to Washington, and estab- 
lish a stove foundry, and continue also my patent practice. I shall not 
intrude, as an agent or an individual, upon either the Commissioner of 
Patents, or Mr. Ewbank, any more than 1 do now, when he is in one city 
and I in another. Yet I do hope that I may have no cause to feel my;*elf 
driven to the wall, because self-respect forbids that I should allow myself 
to suffer beyond a certain point. I know of no blemish upon my reputa- 



IT 

tion to this date, and refer you to letters on file in your office, asking the 
plaice of examiner for me, as some evidence of the fact ; and in this city 
I have been offered the support of some of ihe best men in it, if I would 
run for Congress. 

I have written the foregoing for the purpose and with the hope of dis- 
pelling some of the illusions surrounding Mr. Ewbank with regard to me. 
And I am honorably prompted to this course, because I cannot avoid more 
or less coming into contact with the Patent Office upon points involved in 
the application for letters patent which pass through my hands ; and more- 
over, as I am the humbler individual of the two, I conceive it not at all 
derogatory to my present station to sweep aside stumbling-blocks, whether 
placed designedly, or by casualty, or otherwise in my path. I am making 
an honest living, am as nearly out of debt as a man in business can readily 
be, and am therefore independent. My principle is, that two wrongs don't 
make one right. 

When arguing as a patent lawyer, I feel myself entitled to all the lati- 
tude allowed by the courts to common-law lawyers. I feel bound to take 
the broadest ground, and make the strongest points I can ; and as a con- 
clusion to this letter, I will say that I have letters from inventors from 
several parts of the United States, requesting me to let my name be used 
as their choice for the office of Commissioner of Patents. These letters 
preceded the date of your nomination, and the remark is drawn from me 
in order to show that inventors, at least, do not think me altogether so 
contemptible as I have found myself to be considered in some quarters. 

With all due respect to myself, I am, your very obedient servant, 

THOS. G. CLINTON. 

To the Commissioner of Patents. 



U. S. Patent Office, 

October 11, 1851. 
Sir : I have received your letter of the 6th instant, and, in reply, have 
only to state that the office disclaims, in the most express terms, both for 
the Commissioner and those employed under him, that it is actuated in its 
correspondence with you by "official or personal contempt," or that it 
entertains towards you the least ill-will. 

Your letter has been placed on file. I cannot regard as "private" a 
communication addressed to me upon official matters. 
I am, respectfully, 

THOS. EWBANK, Commissioner. 
Thos. G. Clinton, Esq., 

Cincinnati, Ohio. 

It will be observed that the word "contemned" was partially erased, 
and the word "disregarded" written over the erasure, in the letter of 
September 30th, 1851, and apparently in the handwriting of the Com- 
missioner of Patents, the body of the letter being, it is supposed, in the 
handwriting of Amos B. Little. But, aside of these letters, my communi- 
cation is a sample of mildness. Having given you so much of the ground- 
^work, I proceed to state, that sometime last fall, being then a resident 

;ent in Cincinnati, Ohio, I sent on an application for letters patent for a 
2 



18 

lock for mail-bags in the names of McGregor & Lee, locksmiths of said 
city. This case was rejected. I then showed Messrs. McGregor & Lee 
how to fix the lock so as to get a patent, and thereby enter the field for 
the post-office contract. Success attended both these eflforts. And while 
my mind was upon the subject of locks, I invented another lock far superior 
to*^ anything before known. I oJQfered it to Messrs. McGregor & Lee, but 
as they had taken ground upon the strength of the other lock, (McGregor, 
Lee, & Clinton's,) they deemed it advisable to retain their position. I 
determined to secure a patent, and made applicable accordingly. I found 
Mr. H. B. Renwick dead-set against my lock. When I came to Wash- 
ington in February last, I appeared at the Patent Omce ; and one day, in 
the draughtsman's room, I asked Mr. Mclntyre to let me look at the 
references, and to give me my papers ; and Mr. H. B. Renwick happening 
to be also present, he, with his peculiarly graceful horse-laugh, thrust his 
face under my hat, and whispered, after a similar style, " that I need not 
stir that up, as he had picked with an old horseshoe nail" the lock which 
I had sent to the Post Office Department, as an illustration of my inven- 
tion ; but which, take notice, sir, I had expressly declined to enter! as a 
competitor for the then contract. Several chance interviews and some 
correspondence were had with the Patent Office about my lock, Mr. Ren- 
wick exhibiting the while an entire freedom from good sense and good 
manners. One day, while asking Mr. Mclntyre for the reference for the 
rejection of McGregor & Lee's application, (a reference which also bore 
upon the patent granted to McGregor, Lee & Clinton,) Mr. H. B. Ren- 
wick happening to be present, grossly insulted me, (the grossest insult that 
can be offered to a professional man,) by interposing the remark "that if 
I wanted to speculate on that, I was too late, as it had all been fixed ;" 
thus intimating that I had come to Washington to speculate upon a flaw 
in my client's patent. Where were Mr. Renwick's scruples about remarks 
passing between agents and examiners then ? The same objections, such 
as he makes about my addressing him in the library, were apropos. Of 
such rule it may be said, that violating human nature, the rule will be 
violated in turn. 

It may be asked what reply I made to Mr. Renwick, he being at the 
time about to pass through the partition door between his room and the 
draughtsman's. Why, I stood aghast — perfectly speechless. For reasons 
given in my letter of October 6, 1851, I wished to avoid a quarrel, and I 
did avoid a quarrel, until trod on so that the veriest worm of the earth 
would have turned upon its assailant. But let me ask, how came Mr. H. 
B. Renwick to know that a question of priority between Messrs. McGregor 
& Lee and the reference Messrs. Roper & Ball in the matter of the pat- 
ents they held for locks was even raised, let alone settled ? Why should 
he so instantly suspect me of underhand designs ? Was he a paid attorney 
in the case ? Could he or ought he to have been employed in any such 
capacity by either Messrs. McGregor & Lee, or Messrs. Roper & Ball, or 
by the Postmaster General ? I have hitherto thought that the Postmaster 
General at most was only (to the detriment of private property in thp 
neighborhood) landlord to several patent agents. 

Yes, Mr. Secretary of the Interior, I swallowed that insult, hoping for 
speedy amendments in the patent law. I had tried my hand with' E* 
Burke, and felt the folly- of attempting to bring officials to account. I 
determined still to hold on and keep quiet ; but a mine exploded under my 



10 

feet, swept away this discretion, and the library was the field of battle, 
and Mr. H. B. Renwick my enemy. Rumors to the ear and straws to the 
eye had long before brought conviction that there was rottenness in Den- 
mark. Yet I was even at this outbreak staggered at the assurance of this 
man. However sore he might feel about suspicions entertained by the 
inventing public with regard to affairs touching the grants of patents, I 
had never said anything to him personally, nor written his name publicly. 
I had written a communication hammering away at the finances and 
organization of the Patent Ofiice, evidently with the object of hastening 
action on the amendments to the patent laws in Congress. I have written 
since communications to the Cincinnati Nonpareil ; but what was that to 
him as an individual, private or official ? Mr. Renwick is the servant, not 
the master of the inventors. 

As to the indentity in invention between Wheeler's bolt, rejected or pat- 
ented, and E. S. Renwick's wrought-iron railroad chair, I had a right 
to express an opinion ; and it is my business to express such opinions, and 
get paid for so doing. I have yet to meet the first man, skilled or un- 
skilled in such matters, who upon explanation does not consider Wheeler's 
and RenAvick's alleged inventions the same. They both use metal that 
would otherwise lie below the bolt or rail, and both press up that portion 
for holding purposes. It matters not whether it holds a door-bolt, a rail 
for roads, or any other bar. Take a card, and cut clips from any two 
opposite sides, turning them up and towards each other sufficiently to con- 
stitute them fasteners, holders, or clasps for a bar, such as an iron rail for 
a railroad, and you will have an idea of the common wrought-iron railroad 
chair long since in use; having clips cut from its base, and this base con- 
stituting a continuous seat. Therefore Mr. Renwick cannot be the inventor 
of either raised clips or a continuous seat. 

Take another card, and punch out from a portion central lengthwise of 
the card, and about one-fifth the distance of the length of the. card from 
one end of it, an H piece, and press up the slips thus made until they rise 
sufficiently above the level of the surface of the card to hold a rail or bolt, 
and you have Wheeler's mode of raising liis clips. Take another card, 
and incise it at the central portion after the shape of a letter H, taking 
out none of the substance of the card, and raise these clips in the same 
way, and you have Renwick's alleged invention. Now, in what does it 
differ from Avhat Wheeler's does, so far? Wheeler goes on to adapt his to 
holding a bolt, whether projected or withdrawn from the clasp that com- 
pletes the fastening of a door or gate or shutter by such articles ; but he 
does all that Renwick does, and something more. Wheeler cuts his clips 
from that portion of the metal which would otherwise lie under the bolt. 
Renwick cuts his clips from that part of the metal which would be beneath 
the rail. Wheeler bends his up to clasp a bolt ; Renwick bends his up to 
clasp a rail. Now, in my opinion, neither Wheeler nor Renwick are en- 
titled to a patent for the mere mode of cutting and raising the clips. 
Wheeler's invention lies in adapting such a device to holding the bolt in 
position, whether projected for fastening or withdrawn for unfastening a 
door. Mr. Fitzgerald pronounced the device of the underlieing metal old 
and not patentable ; and I fully agree with him. Here is his decision, 
signed, of course, by the acting commissioner : 



Patent Office, July 21, 1847. 
Sir: The claim of W. Wheeler to letters patent for alleged improve- 
ment in bolts for doors has been examined, and found to possess nothing 
new. Such bolts have been in common use throughout the country for a 
great length of time ; and those which are cast are but recently introduced. 
You can withdraw or appeal. 

H. H. SYLVESTER. 
Dr. T. F. Jones, Washington, B. C. 

Respect for the Senate of the United States forbids me to comment 
further upon the following report, which was made to it upon the subject 
of my petition than to say, that Senator Norris told me he and E. Burke, 
late Commissioner of Patents, had an interview on the subject, and this 
accounts for the manifest (to me hostile) characteristics of the report ; that 
the identity of the invention involved in the clasp for the door-bolt, where 
the knob of the bolt plays, and in the clasps for the rail, is endeavored to 
be sunk in the subterfuge that one is for a door-bolt, and the other for a 
railroad chair ; that a chair made complete from a single piece of bar-iron 
was in common use when Mr. E. S. Renwick made his application ; and 
that clips had been turned up from the underlieing metal for clasping pur- 
poses, and therefore that Mr. E. S. Renwick was not entitled to letters 
patent. 

As to the fact that a door-bolt cannot be used for a railroad chair, it is 
well known that the Patent Office rejects churns upon bedstead fastenings, 
and says white is black or black is white, just according to the personal 
views of the particular specimen of self-exalted humanity at whose throne 
the poor inventor must humbly lay his papers. The other day the best 
pump ever submitted to the Patent Office was rejected upon a steam-boiler, 
and the rejection insisted on in defiance of the able argument of the Hon. 
Mr. Disney, and to the dismay of the applicant, and the astonishment 
of his attorney. 



m THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



May 5, 1852. 

Ordered to be printed. 



Mr. NoRRis made the following 

report: 

[Which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to.] 

The Committee on Patents and the Patent Ojffics, to whom were referred the 
memorial of Thomas Gr. Clinton, praying Congress to require of the Pat- 
ent Office the reasons which influenced Chief Examiner H. B. Renwiek 
to grant to his brother, E. S. Renwick, a patent agent, a patent for a 
wrought-iron railroad chair in 1850, in face of the rejection of William . 
Wheeler 8 application for letters patent for an identical invention in 



21 

1847-8, and also the memorial of P. H, Watson and the said JE. S. 

Menwick in answer thereto, report : 

That it appears from the documents and evidence laid before the com- 
mittee, that in 1847-8, William Wheeler made application to the Patent 
Office for letters patent for a "' new manufacture of bolts for doors," claim- 
ing as new therein, and desiring to secure " by letters patent, the making 
the whole of the insti-ument, with the exception of the sliding-bolt itself 
and the staple that is to be fastened to the door, from one piece of malleable 
metal by bending the same, and by making a perforation therein to receive 
and to allow of the play of the knob." It also appears that some two or 
three years afterwards Edward S. ReriWick made application to the Patent 
Office, claiming letters patent for " a wrought-iron railroad chair with lips 
formed from that portion of the chair on which the rail is usually sup- 
ported." 

It further appears fi-om the documents and evidence on file in this case 
before your committee, that on the 23c? da^ of October, 1847, a patent wa» 
granted to the said William Wheeler for the identical invention for which 
the said Clinton alleges a patent was refused. 

It is proper to state that the subject-matter of each of these patents is 
a merchantable commodity, are articles of trade, and not a machine or 
process for producing the commodity. It is also worthy of note, that ma- 
chinery specially fitted for making either article, would not be adapted to 
the production of the other. Wheeler's bolt-case, according to his specifi- 
cation, is produced by four operations by the aid of diflferent machines. 
The first operation is to cut out a plate of metal of the proper size ; the 
second, is to punch holes in the plate for the knob of the bolt to play in, 
and to receive fastening screws or nails ; the third, is to bend the plate into 
a particular form, which partially shapes the case; and the fourth, is to 
bend the plate still further, until it is reduced to the shape required for the 
finished bolt-case. Renwiek's chair, according to his specification, is made 
complete of a single piece of bar-iron, by a single stroke of a punch. 

Wheeler's bolt-case consists of a cylindrical tube for the bolt to slide in, 
divided longitudinally by an open joint on the under side, with a flange on 
each side of the opening. These flanges form a divided base by which the 
case is attached to a door. The case thus made surrounds the bolt, and 
if large enough to admit a rail, Avould surround that also. 

To make a bolt-case pass round the bolt, adds to the security and value 
of the fastening ; but to make a chair surround the rail, would render the 
surface for the car-wheels to run on so uneven, that the shock and strains 
produced by the passage of a train of cars over it, would inevitably dam- 
age, if not destroy the rails, chairs, and cars. Moreover, the base of the 
bolt-case being divided, its chief strength is above, and it would not, if 
made large enough for a chair, aiBford a sufficiently firm support to the base 
of the rail to be of any service. Hence, while the bolt-case is an ingenious 
and useful contrivance for the purpose for which it was designed, it could 
not be used as a railroad chair. 

Renwiek's chair, instead of being made like the bolt-case with an arch 
to pass over the rail, and a divided, weak base, consists of a broad plat and 
strong plate for the rail to rest on firmly, with narrow lips set up which 
merely embrace the lower side or base of the rail, leaving its upper part 
entirely unobstructed. It is an exceedingly simple, strong, and durable 



n 

railroad chair, but does not appeal to be constructed on a plan that would 
admit of its use as a door bolt-case. The door-bolt and the chair are be- 
yond doubt widely different inventions, for totally dissimilar uses, and each 
properly the subject of a separate patent ; Wheeler's invention, therefore, 
does not embrace anything that would have justified the refusal of a patent 
for Renwick's chair. The committee, therefore, submit the following reso- 
lution : 

Resolved, That the committee be discharged from the further considera- 
tion of said memorials. 

Another object was, that if Renwick's patent could stand the test of the 
attention thus called to it, the ofiice should be held to grant other patents 
upon similar grounds of reasoning and analogy. The object was to serve 
the public, and not defame an individual whose opinions and influence 
demand notice, and derives weight only from his official station ; and whose 
existence even could not be surmised from the perusal of the whole com- 
munication. 

Upon the heel of the gross insult offered me in the presence of new em- 
ployees in the Patent Office, and of my client, and in the library, then, and 
not till then, I told Mr. H. B. Renwick that ''we would see his reason for 
his grant of letters patent to his brother." Then, and not till then, in 
consideration of his contemptuous manner, I told him I would put him 
through, and that I was just the man to put such a fellow through ; and 
i;hathe was not of such great personal importance, even if he did get $2,500 
•per annum. And not until he returned back, after leaving the library, and 
renewed the manner and matter, did I tell him that although he might 
assume the lofty airs of one above me, I Avould compel him to notice and 
speak to me, and handle him as I would a doll-baby. There is a stench 
about official insolence and the insolence of officials that is peculiarly 
obnoxious to American nostrils. The disgorged filth of the buzzard is milk 
and honey in comparison. 

Mr. Renwick charges me with want of manliness. The answer to this 
is found in the burthen of my petition. I there took the first opportunity 
I had to placard and post him up. His condition when taken down by the 
inventing public is yet to be seen. I have now to introduce Mr. J. J. 
Johnston's letter, and let .it speak for itself. 

Cincinnati, June 21, 1852. 

Sir : The following is a true statement of what occurred in the library 
room of the Patent Office : 

In the early part of last April, I went with you to the library of the 
Patent Office to look over some books which treated on the subject of 
moulding. While we were engaged in reading, Mr. Renwick came into 
the library for some purpose unknown to me. You asked his permission 
to introduce me to him, stating, at the same time, that I was about to file 
a case that would come before him (Mr. Renwick) for examination. Mr. 
Renwick, in a very excited manner, replied that he did not want anytMng 
to do with you after your writing such a dirty article as that, (referring to 
the article you published in the "Farmer and Mechanic") He then 
turned to me and said that he would be very happy to talk to me on any 
business that I might have with him. (I paid no attention to him.) You 
then made somie very strong remarks, saying that you were the very maa 



23 

who could put such chaps through, and that the article referred to was not 
so dirty as he was. Mr. Renwick left the room without making any reply 
to you. In a short time he returned — came up to me, and said that he 
would be happy to talk to me on any business I might have with him. 
(I made no reply, but turned to reading, for I could not stop to talk to 
any man who would try to insult my friend at a time and place where it 
was uncalled for.) You then made some other remarks to Mr. Renwick. 
I do not now remember what they were. The reply that Mr. Renwick 
made was, that he did not want to talk to you. He then left the room : this 
was the last of it ; and I hope I may never be under the necessity of see- 
ing another scene like it in any public office of my country. 
Yours, respectfully, 

JAMES J. JOHNSTON. 
Dr. Clinton. 

I think, Mr. Secretary, I have repelled the charges of having done any- 
thing "dirty," "maliciously false," "libellous," or "garbled;" and I have 
shown that I have had such provocation and such treatment as few men 
would peacefully swallow, only seeking redress from you, instead of anni- 
hilating the miscreant where he stood, upon the utterance of his insults. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

THOS. G. CLINTON. 



^M iiiiiiiii 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

illlllllllllililllllilllllillll* 

019 923 874 7 



Tll^3 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 923 874 7 



